History lessons we've failed to learn

John Pilger (We cannot look from the sides as we are led towards crisis in Iran, April 13) highlights the narrow outlook of the British public towards both its current history and the slide towards war against Iran. He also reminds us of the lack of historical knowledge about the failure of the British empire. This "one-way moral screen" is not confined to the war-hungry press, it is also evident among those who should know better.

Last year Gordon Brown, in an attempt to underline his Britishness, told us that we should apparently be proud of the benefits bestowed upon the world by the empire. Not an emotion shared by the descendants of the millions who died in the 19th and 20th century as a result of the Boys' Own empire.

Our media and politicians ignore the long history of British intervention in Iran and hold up their hands in hurt surprise when this century of humiliation rebounds on British sailors. If an objective history curriculum was central to British education, we might stop looking from the sides, as Pilger suggests.Bill MajorLiverpool

John Pilger reworks his familiar attacks on Britain and America, and in effect tells those who lost limbs, loved ones and livelihoods in the London bombings that they were in part to blame, while those who actually lit the bomb fuses were not.

There may be plenty wrong with Britain and its foreign policy, but if your bile gets none of you slung into jail, at least we'll know that it can withstand criticism, unlike certain countries that he refrains from mentioning.John WebsterLondon

Is our prime minister above the law? What happened to the plans, first laid by a group of MPs in August 2004, to impeach him for the illegal invasion of Iraq? What happened to the judicial review, sought in August 2005 by the families of dead soldiers, of the government's refusal to hold an independent inquiry into the decision to go to war?

Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, has stated: "This Labour government.. is party to a war crime of monstrous proportions." John Pilger reports the chief prosecutor of the international criminal court as saying that Blair could one day (as a private citizen) face war-crime charges. Why not now?Raymond FisherStratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire

Haifa Zangana claims that because attacks on coalition forces are more numerous (The Iraqi resistance only exists to end the occupation, April 12), Iraqi civilians are not the main target of the insurgency.

This fails to note that the attacks on civilians are more deadly, sometimes killing and wounding hundreds in one incident. Data from Iraq Body Count shows that suicide bombs and mortar attacks have killed more than 16,000 civilians in four years. This compares with the 3,368 coalition forces and 6,450 Iraqi army and police killed by insurgents in the same period (see icasualties.org). If we look at numbers killed, Iraqi civilians are the main victims of the insurgency, followed by Iraqi army and police.Professor David TurnerCanterbury, Kent

Marina Hyde ends her article (New technology, new lows for our political discourse, April 14) with the comment: "If a million people can march against the Iraq war and be ignored..."

Firstly, because an argument does not prevail does not mean it has been ignored. And, secondly, if she thinks that government policy should be determined by the number marching to urge a particular point of view, she presumably believes that foxhunting should not have been banned in view of the large numbers who took part in the Countryside Alliance march.

As a matter of fact, opinion polls at the time reported majorities against both sets of marchers. But if numbers marching should not determine policies, neither should opinion polls. The fundamental principle of representative democracy is that between elections, policies are decided by those we elect and at elections we decide who those representatives should be.David TerryDroitwich, Worcestershire